AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

R.T.C.'s Authority Usurped by New Committees ritiTICISM of a joint

2nd August 1946, Page 26
2nd August 1946
Page 26
Page 26, 2nd August 1946 — R.T.C.'s Authority Usurped by New Committees ritiTICISM of a joint
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

road-rail licensing sull-committee, which, he suggested, had taken to itself the functions of the road haulage licensing courts. was expressed by Major F. S. Eastwood, Regional Transport Commissioner for the North-Eastern area, during a public inquiry held at Sheffield on July 24.

The applicant, Mr. G. Sargeant. of Finningley. near Doncaster, had applied for an A licence to carry building materials, agricultural produce and other goods.

Before the war, it was stated, he was the holder of an A licence for one vehicle and an A contract licence for another. and he farmed 103 acres of land. During the war he was pressed to develop his farm because of the call for increased food production. Since the end of hostilities, however, his farm had' been reduced considerably in size by the owners, a sand and gravel company, whIch was taking more and more land for quarrying, and now he had been notified that he must vacate the farm by the end of the present year. Therefore, he had decided to revert to haulage.

In February, 1946, the applicant said, he was granted a B defence permit, which he was unable to take up because he could not obtain a vehicle, but now he had been able to obtain delivery (of a lorry. Having consequently applied to revert to his original general A licence, he had been interviewed by a road-rail licensing sub-committee, and, as a result of that interview, he sought to alter his application to one for a B licence.

Asked by Major Eastwood whether the certificate for variation of his application was signed by him of his own free will, the applicant replied: " No, very unfreely." On being pressed for further details. the applicant said he knew only one member of the:sub-committee, and was not told who the rest of the members were. He eventually signed the certificate because he realized that he " was in the hands of the Philistines."

Major Eastwood said he was not prepared to accept the certificates which had been produced in this and several other cases. He proposed to ignore them completely. Judging by letters received from applicants enclosing those certificates, it would appear that operators were being given the impression that the licensing sub-committees were the statutory licensing authorities.

Mr. Hodgson, appearing for the LN.E.R., interposed to say it was not the intention of the licensing sub-committees to usurp the functions of the licensing authority.

Major Eastwood thereupon read extracts from operators' letters as bearing on this point. One such extract was: "E am meeting a committee at Doncaster. If I am successful and the L.N.E.R. withdraw their objection, is it necessary for me to attend the court?" An extract from another letter was: "As a result of an inquiry by the R.H.A., our application for an A licence has been dismissed, and they have instructed us to apply for a B licence."

Later during the sitting. Mr. Jaukson, appearing for Mr. A. Gosney, of .Sheffield, said his client had been sent for by the road-rail sub-committee concerned but was told that no decision would be made in his favour. Mr. Jackson added that he considered the proper place to investigate licence applications was in public 'before the licens. ing authority, this, of course, being th customary procedure.

Expressing agreement with the latter point, Major Eastwood said that, whilst there was nothing to prevent an applicant and objectors meeting and agreeing on a certain line of. action, this particular sub-committee appeared to be exceeding its duties.


comments powered by Disqus